When you put money on the horse it is useful to know about its form, says award-winning Shropshire businessman Dr Geoffrey Davies, chairman of the Shropshire Council Business Board and boss of Ludlow farm machinery firm McConnel.

Similarly, when you, or rather if you, decide to get out of bed to vote for a candidate at the forthcoming General Election, your decision should be based on something solid: information that helps you decide that here is someone who knows his or her stuff, who will represent you and fellow constituents fairly and vigorously and who will hold the Government to account on your behalf.

Given the short time that Gordon Brown has allowed for the proper race to get underway, every candidate – whether newcomer or seasoned politician – has his work cut out.

Candidates have just weeks to demonstrate their qualities, show their profiles, win your trust.

They have to field questions at local hustings and doorsteps about all issues affecting you and they must attempt to be convincing on the big issues too: health, education, defence, immigration, Europe and, of course, how to tackle the economic deficit.

At the same time all these hopeful and hard-working candidates have to try to disassociate themselves as would-be parliamentarians from the messy image that Parliament has unfortunately accrued in the minds of the majority of voters in the UK.

The nasty aroma of the MPs’ expenses scandal hangs in the air.

More recently, the curtain remains pulled back in the public’s eye, illuminating ex-ministers touting for fat-cat consultancy jobs. And this is only what has happened recently.

Meanwhile, top bank executives openly defend their right to accept million-pound bonuses while some of our major banks – government-owned, saved or bolstered by taxpayers’ money – actually make an annual loss.

All this amounts to a bad bundle in the saddlebags of the would-be contenders for the Parliament and Political Office Stakes.

Of course, the Red Tops love it; the lines are drawn close; the usual champions are shouted to the frontline; wake up everyone, we have a real fight on our hands.

As a humble manufacturer not naturally given to gambling, but dependent on making calculated risks and using a well proven formula for improving failing companies, I look on with amazement.

It’s not just the greed and lack of accountability of certain aspects of commerce that keeps my jaw slack – it’s the stupidity of whole mess we are in at the moment.

If business ran on anything like the lines of this government, I’m afraid it would fall at the first hurdle.

Effectiveness business, and effective government are surely not about structure and artifice.

Success in both must be about a direct and honest line from you to your goal – in business terms, to your customer.

But a great deal seems to be artificial in government these days: the desperate attempts to use the language of business, flinging ‘delivery’ and ‘solutions’ around the room; the game-plays at ministerial level with ministers trying their political teeth on one new job after another without knowing very much about their subjects; a civil service that seems to concentrate on all the wrong things – health and safety at the front door, nothing much inside and home as quickly as possible with a pretty safe pension.

I know that’s simplistic and that people often work quite hard.

But plenty of work is created without much apparent value.

Our state-paid professionals are choked with red tape. There are too many targets too boring to read let alone to achieve; and box ticking in place of genuine communication and constructive activity.

Real value is not created in this environment.

Where governance is concerned, both the public and private sector seem to have a mutual dependence on thin air. Perhaps as someone who makes useful things that people need, I would say that.

Worst of all, if there is merit in the people at the top, this kind of political structure serves to disguise it.

Too many jobs are inherently politicised; there are too many career politicians divorced from the coalface.

Let us have a doctor in charge of the health service, an economist in charge of the exchequer, a suitably brilliant admiral or general in charge of defence.

This may seem restrictive but it is really common sense. People in leadership need to know the territory or be comfortable about the decisions they make affecting it – decisions that should be dictated by their merit and their experience.

I need more space to explain details but, were I a political leader asking for a mandate at present, I would stop trying to thrust too much policy on the electorate or to explain how I will pay for it.

Even the basics of a half-decent plan can change and we should all admit that we cannot truly organise the future, particularly one that is so globally interdependent.

Life happens and those of us who are lucky enough to survive and enjoy it have to adapt.

What we can do is stick to our guns, provided we have properly calculated the risks we are taking.

Talking about billions here, billions there, taxing the super rich, feeding back to the super poor, looking after pensioners is just noisy.

Everyone in each of the three main parties wants to do pretty well the same thing. And preaching policies based on soap-slippery economic statistics no longer works and certainly doesn’t appeal.

Instead of this I would field my team, show you who I am and how I will do the things you need me to do on your behalf. So, if I were Gordon Brown, I’d work out who my team in government would be, should you elect my party again, and I will ensure that they parade themselves proudly before you, explaining their proposals.

I will vouch for them and support them as they support me. Lower down the food chain, prospective parliamentary candidates, including MPs and current ministers trying to keep their seats and offices, should use every tool at their disposal to explain themselves, to comment on topical issues, to bring matters affecting their constituency to their constituents’ attention.

The internet is a marvellous tool for both accountability and responsibility if used with a bit of diligence. Leafleting is also good but tends to be best if used sparingly with a clear message.

In the end it is all down to the gamble I believe we all must make on the big day. You gamble if you vote or if you don’t vote.

It is your choice based on what you believe is best and hopefully not just on what will provide immediate economic advantage.

Money is not a tool, it is leverage and like intelligence it works best when it is shared, or it is thistledown.

So if you see a sparkle that suggests these kinds of quality in your local candidate – your horse – then place your bet.